DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is responsive to the amendment filed 03/25/2025.
The Notice of Allowance mailed 07/10/2025 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, 14-17, 19-23, and 25 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, 14-17, 19-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “selecting... based on information,,,describing characteristics of a workload, a priority level for the workload and a processor component to execute the workload” and “scheduling... in response to a request to execute the workload...the workload for execution on the processor component in accordance with the priority level, the request including the workload identifier” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “by a resource manager”, “from a workload initiator”, “wherein the processor component is one of a processor core and a media encoding/decoding accelerator”, “by the job scheduler” and “from the workload initiator” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application under Prong 2, or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f), and “receiving, by a job scheduler of the processor component from the resource manager, the priority level for the workload in association with a workload identifier” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional element “executing, by the processor component, the workload” is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “by a resource manager”, “from a workload initiator”, “wherein the processor component is one of a processor core and a media encoding/decoding accelerator”, “by the job scheduler” and “from the workload initiator” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, and for the limitation “receiving, by a job scheduler of the processor component from the resource manager, the priority level for the workload in association with a workload identifier” the courts have identified mere data/information gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely gathering data/information do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element “executing, by the processor component, the workload” is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim does not recite any mental process, however, the additional element “the priority level corresponds to one or more quality of service (QoS) levels based on a user experience objective” is merely generic computer component, thus is neither a practical application under prong 1, or amount to significantly more under step 2B. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations “identifying, based on the characteristics of the workload, a job classification for the workload, wherein the job classification indicates whether the workload is a real-time job” and “identifying, based on one or more policies, a priority definition corresponding to the job classification” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations “determining whether to select the processor core or the media encoding/decoding accelerator based on the characteristics of the workload and one or more utilization metrics of the processor core and the media encoding/decoding accelerator” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations “identifying...the workload received from the workload initiator”, “ identifying... in response to receiving the workload, the priority level associated with the workload and an identifier of the workload initiator” and “scheduling...execution of the workload on the processor component based on the priority level and the identifier of the workload initiator” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The additional elements “by the job scheduler,” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “assigning the workload to a job scheduling queue among a plurality of job scheduling queues for the processor component, each queue corresponding to a different priority level” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations “preempting a first workload having a first priority level for a second workload having a second priority level, wherein the second priority level is a higher priority than the first priority level” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 21, the limitations “communicating, to the workload initiator in response to a workload allocation request, a workload allocation recommendation identifying the processor component, wherein the job scheduler for the processor component receives the workload from the workload initiator based on the workload allocation recommendation” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the claim recites further mental process. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 22, the claim does not recite any mental process, however, the additional element “the workload allocation request is received prior to the workload initiator submitting the workload to any processor component” is merely generic computer component, thus is neither a practical application under prong 1, or amount to significantly more under step 2B. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 23, the claim does not recite any mental process, however, the additional element “the characteristics of the workload indicate one or more of a media encoding/decoding protocol, a resolution, and a frame rate” is merely generic computer component, thus is neither a practical application under prong 1, or amount to significantly more under step 2B. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 25, the claim does not recite any mental process, however, the additional element “the job scheduler is configured to schedule jobs on the media encoding/decoding accelerator” is merely generic computer component, thus is neither a practical application under prong 1, or amount to significantly more under step 2B. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations “select... based on information...describing characteristics of a workload, a priority level for the workload and a processor component to execute the workload” and “schedule.. in response to a request to execute the workload...the workload for execution on the processor component in accordance with the priority level, the request including the workload identifier” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “a computer processor”, “a computer memory”, “computer program instructions”, “by a resource manager”, “from a workload initiator”, “the processor component is one of a processor core and a media encoding/decoding accelerator”, “by the job scheduler” and “from the workload initiator” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application under Prong 2, or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f), and “receive, by a job scheduler of the processor component from the resource manager, the priority level for the workload in association with a workload identifier” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional element “execute, on the processor component, the workload” is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a computer processor”, “a computer memory”, “computer program instructions”, “by a resource manager”, “from a workload initiator”, “the processor component is one of a processor core and a media encoding/decoding accelerator”, “by the job scheduler” and “from the workload initiator” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, and for the limitation “receive, by a job scheduler of the processor component from the resource manager, the priority level for the workload in association with a workload identifier” the courts have identified mere data/information gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely gathering data/information do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element “execute, on the processor component, the workloa” is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 11, 12, 14, and 15, they correspond to claims 2, 3, 7, and 8. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations “select... based on information...describing characteristics of a workload, a priority level for the workload and a processor component to execute the workload” and “schedule.. in response to a request to execute the workload...the workload for execution on the processor component in accordance with the priority level, the request including the workload identifier” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “a computer readable storage medium”, “computer program instructions”, “by a resource manager”, “from a workload initiator”, “the processor component is one of a processor core and a media encoding/decoding accelerator”, “by the job scheduler” and “from the workload initiator” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application under Prong 2, or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f), and “receive, by a job scheduler of the processor component from the resource manager, the priority level for the workload in association with a workload identifier” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional element “execute, on the processor component, the workload” is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a computer readable storage medium”, “computer program instructions”, “by a resource manager”, “from a workload initiator”, “the processor component is one of a processor core and a media encoding/decoding accelerator”, “by the job scheduler” and “from the workload initiator” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, and for the limitation “receive, by a job scheduler of the processor component from the resource manager, the priority level for the workload in association with a workload identifier” the courts have identified mere data/information gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely gathering data/information do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element “execute, on the processor component, the workloa” is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 17, 19, and 20, they correspond to claims 3, 7, and 8. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, 14-17, 19-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farhan et al. (US 20160224381) in view of Wang et al. (US 20200192715).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to claim 1:
Farhan teaches a method of priority-based scheduling with limited resources (Abstract: Methods and systems for optimizing workloads on information handling systems), the method comprising:
selecting, by a resource manager based on information from a workload initiator describing characteristics of a workload, a priority level for the workload and a processor component to execute the workload, wherein the processor component is one of a processor core and a media encoding/decoding accelerator ([0033]: “…User interface represents a user interface that a user may operate to use policy processing engine, for example to specify the workload or to select a profile used to implement a particular workload policy…”; [0039]: “In operation, policy processing engine may receive a workload request, such as from a user via user interface. The workload request may specify a computing task, such as a computing task executed by application…The workload request may include an indication of a particular one of HIS profile. Alternatively, policy processing engine may select one of HIS profile based on other information, such as the user (or user account) or application…”; [0040]: “based on the workload request, policy processing engine may determine workload attributes of the computing tasks. The workload attributes may include dependencies of the computing tasks on hardware resources. For example, when the computing task includes multithreading, activation of multiple cores within a CPU, when available, may be desirable….Accordingly, the workload attributes may specify any one or more of the degree of multithreading, a thread priority, and an instruction set architectures…The workload attributes may specify any one or more of a desired processor frequency, processor cache capacity; processor cache architecture, processor cache throughput, memory capacity, memory bus speed, memory throughput, and usage of a non-uniform memory archecture…”);
receiving, by a job scheduler of the processor component from the resource manager, the priority level for the workload ([0040]: “based on the workload request, policy processing engine may determine workload attributes of the computing tasks. The workload attributes may include dependencies of the computing tasks on hardware resources. For example, when the computing task includes multithreading, activation of multiple cores within a CPU, when available, may be desirable….Accordingly, the workload attributes may specify any one or more of the degree of multithreading, a thread priority, and an instruction set architectures…”; [0041]: “Then, policy processing engine may identify specific ones of hardware resources present at the information handling system, for example, via monitoring engine. In addition, policy processing engine may monitor an operational state of at least some of hardware resources in order to determine which configuration changes are indicated by the workload attributes, or which configuration settings are already commensurate with the workload attributes…”; [0042]: “Next, based on the workload attributes and hardware resources, policy processing engine may determine a workload policy for the computing task…The workload policy may specify hardware resources used to execute the computing tasks such as by specifying specific settings for aspects of identified hardware resources…”);
scheduling, by the job scheduler in response to a request to execute the workload from the workload initiator, the workload for execution on the processor component in accordance with the priority level ([0042]: “Next, based on the workload attributes and hardware resources, policy processing engine may determine a workload policy for the computing task…The workload policy may specify hardware resources used to execute the computing tasks such as by specifying specific settings for aspects of identified hardware resources…When the workload policy is implemented, the computing task may be executed by the information handling system….”) ; and
executing, by the processor component, the workload ([0042]: “Next, based on the workload attributes and hardware resources, policy processing engine may determine a workload policy for the computing task…The workload policy may specify hardware resources used to execute the computing tasks such as by specifying specific settings for aspects of identified hardware resources…When the workload policy is implemented, the computing task may be executed by the information handling system….”) (see also figures 5 and 7 with associated reference paragraphs 0033, 0040-0046, 0073-0074, 0078-0079).
Farhan, however, does not explicitly indicate that a workload is identified based on a workload identifier.
Wang teaches a workload is identified based on a workload identifier ([0077]: “work scheduler 910 to assign a workload to a processor (e.g., any of core-0 to core-5 or other numbers or cores or other devices) and control when to pre-fetch relevant content to a cache or memory used by the processor for the workload based on a position of an identifier of the workload in a work queue 920 associated with the processor”; [0140]: “the work scheduler to ... assign a workload to a processor and control when to pre-fetch content relevant to the workload to store in a memory accessible to the processor based on a position of an identifier of the workload in a work queue associated with the processor).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Farhan with Wang because it would have improved the efficiency of CPU performance with regard to processing tasks, which in turn can reduce the total cost of ownership (TCO) for cloud providers who own CPUs.
As to claim 2:
Farhan teaches the priority level corresponds to one or more quality of service levels based on a user experience objective ([0040] and ([0061]).
As to claim 3:
Farhan teaches selecting a priority level for the workload includes: identifying, based on the characteristics of the workload, a job classification for the workload, wherein the job classification indicates whether the workload is a real-time job; and identifying, based on one or more policies, a priority definition corresponding to the job classification ([0031-0033] and [0039-0040]).
As to claim 6:
Farhan teaches selecting the processor component to execute the workload includes: determining whether to select the processor core or the media encoding/decoding accelerator based on the characteristics of the workload and one or more utilization metrics of the processor core and the media encoding/decoding accelerator ([0040-0042]).
As to claim 7:
Farhan teaches identifying, by the job scheduler, the workload received from the workload initiator; identifying, by the job scheduler in response to receiving the workload, the priority level associated with the workload; and scheduling, by the job scheduler, execution of the workload on the processor component based on the priority level and an identifier of the workload initiator ([0033] and [0039-0040]).
Farhan, however, does not explicitly teach, Wang teaches the identifier of the workload initiator ([0077] and [0140]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Farhan with Wang because it would have improved the efficiency of CPU performance with regard to processing tasks, which in turn can reduce the total cost of ownership (TCO) for cloud providers who own CPUs.
As to claim 8:
Farhan, however, does not explicitly teach, Wang teaches assigning the workload to a job scheduling queue among a plurality of job scheduling queues for the processor component, each queue corresponding to a different priority level ([0026], [0035], [0046] and [0079]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Farhan with Wang because it would have improved the efficiency of CPU performance with regard to processing tasks, which in turn can reduce the total cost of ownership (TCO) for cloud providers who own CPUs.
As to claim 9:
Farhan teaches scheduling execution of the workload on the processor component includes: preempting a first workload having a first priority level for a second workload having a second priority level, wherein the second priority level is a higher priority than the first priority level ([0040] and [0061]).
As to claim 21:
Farhan teaches communicating, to the workload initiator in response to a workload allocation request, a workload allocation recommendation identifying the processor component, wherein the job scheduler for the processor component receives the workload from the workload initiator based on the workload allocation recommendation ([0063] and [0067-0068]).
As to claim 22:
Farhan teaches the workload allocation request is received prior to the workload initiator submitting the workload to any processor component ([0039-0040]).
As to claim 23:
Farhan teaches the characteristics of the workload indicate one or more of a media encoding/decoding protocol, a resolution, and a frame rate ([0030] and [0038-0039]).
As to claim 25:
Farhan teaches the job scheduler is configured to schedule jobs on the media encoding/decoding accelerator ([0038-0039]).
As to claims 10-12, 14, and 15:
Refer to the discussion of claims 1-3, 7, and 8 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 10-12, 14, and 15 are the same as claims 1-3, 7, and 8, except claims 10-12, 14, and 15 are apparatus claims and claims 1-3, 7, and 8 are method claims.
As to claims 16, 17, 19, and 20:
Refer to the discussion of claims 1, 3, 7, and 8 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 are the same as claims 1, 3, 7, and 8, except claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 are computer program product claims and claims 1, 3, 7, and 8 are method claims
Response to Arguments
4. Applicants' arguments filed 03/25/2025 have been considered but are moot in
view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN H. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3765. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LEWIS BULLOCK, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/VAN H NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199